Headlines

Joseph Curl

Why you’re right to hate both parties

The AR-15 is designed for war. Perfectly designed. It’s the civilian version of the M-16, the go-to-war weapon for decades. The home-version, semi-automatic weapon fires fast and lots: Clips hold 20 or 30 rounds (Mr. Holmes is accused of having used a 100-round drum magazine, like Sylvester Stallone in … well, any movie). They are literally killer machines, weapons of mass destruction.

So, Democrats howled again — but this time, they were right. We’ve got to outlaw those war weapons, they said. Republicans, predictably, played the slippery-slope card. “If they ban high-powered assault weapons, you can bet it won’t be long before they come for our coon-hunting rifles.”…

But here, the Democrats are right: No one needs an AR-15 to, say, hunt rabbits, and their potential danger, in the wrong hands, clearly outweighs any so-called “right” to bear arms. Americans can still possess just about any weapon they want, without government intervention, just not those. Do Americans have a right to a shoulder-fired missile? Of course not. Same thing.

Yet there’s what’s right and what’s political expedient, and never the twain shall meet. Both parties fail the common-sense test when pressed on their core “beliefs,” and both should be ashamed.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Didn’t his AR-15 jam early on leaving him to use a different weapon or was that one of the other mass killers that is always pointed out as having had an AR-15?

As morbid as it may be, the presence of the AR-15 means nothing without details of how many people were killed with that versus other guns (during the rampage) that people aren’t calling killing machines.

They should also look at details about why the locations were selected – Is there a reason the guy in Aurora drive past multiple theaters to get to the one in town without concealed carry being allowed?

Does police response time and/or tactics affect the outcome?

What is different about instances where the murders are low (or the killer is stopped before getting even one person) versus those where body counts are high?

Until legislaters start having those kinds of conversations (rather than using “common sense” arguments to “prove” people don’t need AR-15’s and the like) we will know they are not serious about addressing the actual issue.

I really only hate the democrat party. They are not your grandfather’s democrat party, they are Trumpka and SEIU’s democrat party. Ruining America. I am only annoyed with the GOP, they could make it up to me at any time.

But here, the Democrats are right: No one needs an AR-15 to, say, hunt rabbits, and their potential danger, in the wrong hands, clearly outweighs any so-called “right” to bear arms.

You know what’s better than Joseph Curl. Congress without Joseph Curl. Lice. Brussels sprouts. Colonoscopies. Root canals. There are still some Congressmen who understand the 2nd amendment, and understand the definition of a weapon is “machine with potential danger”

Americans can still possess just about any weapon they want, without government intervention, just not those. Do Americans have a right to a shoulder-fired missile? Of course not. Same thing.

I think the Second Amendment was primarily intended to ensure that a “free state” could muster a sufficient combat-adequate militia to protect itself against riots or insurrection, not to arm citizens against governments. That would have paradoxically permitted and enabled a slave state to put down a slave revolt, or, say, New York to contain the Draft Riots.

That said, the wording is susceptible to more libertarian interpretations. In any case, I’ve read that an automatic weapon can sustain a rate of fire anywhere from ten to a hundred times that of a semi-automatic. Banning the former seems much more practically significant than tweaking restrictions on the latter.

I think the Second Amendment was primarily intended to ensure that a “free state” could muster a sufficient combat-adequate militia to protect itself against riots or insurrection, not to arm citizens against governments.

Seth Halpern on January 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Alexander Hamilton and I disagree.

From the Federalist Papers

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

@Butterfly Dragon: I would argue that that quotation tends more to support my view. Hamilton is implying that states can take “regular measures for defense” against national tyranny whereas citizens or localities have little organizational ability to counter state tyranny. He is assuring his readers that states’ rights will be a sufficient bulwark against the former. The foundation of state self-defense against national “usurpation” was the armed citizenry.

In any case, I’ve read that an automatic weapon can sustain a rate of fire anywhere from ten to a hundred times that of a semi-automatic. Banning the former seems much more practically significant than tweaking restrictions on the latter.

Seth Halpern on January 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Are fully automatic firearms legal anywhere in the U.S.? By “fully automatic”, I mean a firearm where you hold down the trigger and the firearm continues to fire for as long as you hold the trigger down – as opposed to semi-automatic, wherein the trigger must be released and re-pulled each time a round is fired.

In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

ButterflyDragon on January 14, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Thus, you are completely incorrect. The quotation states that if in a single state (i.e., NY), the state gov’t becomes tyrannical, then because the subdivisions of the state (i.e., counties, towns, cities, villages) being solely creatures of state legislation are merely political subdivisions of the state and therefore cannot be expected to defend the citizens against the State, and therefore the citizens must be able to arm themselves against the state.

It is actually a very clear statement. It cannot in any way be interpreted in the way you claim. Not even close.

In fact, the opposite can be argued from that quotation. the States themselves, being independent, sovereign entities (in theory, that ship sailed long ago) can arguably protect their citizens from the Federal Gov’t (which implies the right of secession, for instance).

A town or village is not an independent sovereign and cannot be expected to do the same against the state it is a political division of.

But, understood either way, the federal gov’t has no power to restrict firearm ownership. If you believe it is a state’s right to have an armed citizenry for militia purposes – why would the federal gov’t have any power to limit access to firearms in any state. If you believe it is a personal right to bear arms – again fed gov’t has no power.

If you argue (incorrectly) that it is a state right, then you can argue the state (not the federal gov’t) has a right to regulate firearm ownership within that state. It still does not translate into the federal gov’t being able to do so. In no case would the federal gov’t have that power.

@Monkeytoe: (a) Yes, automatic weapons are still legal, with extensive qualifications and restrictions; (b) no, Hamilton is saying that armed citizens have little chance against state tyranny; he is not romanticing suicidal heroics but reassuring states’ rights advocates that a national government won’t be a threat.

Yes, a State is a gov’t – is that not common knowledge. You can use “state” to mean a nation (i.e., ship of state) or, in the case of the U.S. – to refer to New York, Connecticut, etc. And each such state has a gov’t. Not sure how that is not clear or needs to be explained.

When the U.S. was founded, each state was a separate, soveriegn entity. The US constitution did not change that – it merely made the States part of the U.S., and gave the federal gov’t certain powers – all others being reserved to the state.

The Quote by Hamilton was discussing tyranny of the States – as in NY, FL, etc., not the federal gov’t.

Nobody – absolutely nobody – at the time of the founding thought of States as “parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which” the U.S. consists “having no distinct government in each,”

Each state was considered soveriegn and each clearly had a distinct gov’t. Thus, Hamilton could not have been talking about the States vis a vis the Federal Gov’t. He was talking about the individual versus the state (such as VA, CT, NC).

This clearly shows that Hamilton saw the right to bear arms as an individual right – necessary for the citizenry to protect itself against the State Gov’ts. Remember, when the Federalist Papers were written, the Federal Gov’t was not that powerful and state gov’ts were very powerful. that was the circumstances in which these things were written. He was not thinking about an all powerful federal gov’t that ruled every aspect of our lives, b/c that was incomprehensible to them at that time.

Today, many may view states as little more than political subdivisions of the U.S., but in Hamilton’s time that was absolutely not the case.

(b) no, Hamilton is saying that armed citizens have little chance against state tyranny; he is not romanticing suicidal heroics but reassuring states’ rights advocates that a national government won’t be a threat.

Seth Halpern on January 14, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Please quote that section of Hamilton’s quote that even comes remotely close to stating this.

You cannot simply make up an unfounded interpretation and stick with it when it is 100% wrong and unsupported by a single word or syllable in the quoted material.

You have serious reading comprehension issues. To believe as you do, you have to believe that Hamilton believed that a states was merely a “parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which” the U.S. consists “having no distinct government in each,”

Are you seriously contending that Hamilton believed that each state had “no distinct government”?

Or that a state was merely a “parcels, subdivisions, or districts” of the U.S. rather than a sovereign state in its own right?

If you answer yes to either of those questions, you know absolutely nothing of U.S. history, the constitution, or federalism.

Okay, so I’m trying to figure out how I’m “wrong”. Perhaps you should look at what I was responding to with that quote.

ButterflyDragon on January 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I did not say you were wrong. I said that Seth Halpern was wrong. You came on and said something about “what, states are states?” and I could not understand what your question was or what you did not understand about my quote.

I was pointing out that the quote you cited from Hamilton clearly is discussing the individual against a State (i.e., such as NY or VA) rather than an individual versus the U.S. Gov’t – which shows that Hamilton, at least, clearly saw the 2nd amendment as an individual right rather than some militia/collectivist right as put forth by the left (which makes no historic or common sense).

I went back and re-looked at my comment – I inadvertently included your signature line at the end of the quote I copied from your comment. I did not mean to state that you were wrong. I was responding to Seth Halpern.